Do you feel like the Republican Party has been robbing you blind over the last 20 years?

Who exactly sold out America? I mean, seriously, do you actually have names or legally binding court rulings to back that up? No? Then why don't we just throw everyone else into this massive fire sale—the judges, the cops, the ambassadors, and all of us who sat there watching the whole thing go down while doing absolutely nothing.

briskbison55 said:I mean, you're still blaming the current administration for a global crisis, but okay, whatever. My point stays the same though—we've never actually had more opportunities than we do now, whether it's for jobs, education, traveling, or stuff like that.

It's just like how people said everything would grind to a halt if we didn't allow intervention during Desert Storm...

Exactly. Reagan wouldn't let anyone question the defense effort, but Clinton did. And, well, look—the gridlock happened. Have you actually finished reading up on how much of a mess Clinton's leadership was?

Honestly, this year you’re probably gonna realize this whole situation isn't about some global meltdown. It's just straight-up incompetence from the people running the show right now.

Even without any of the stuff you're bringing up, there would still be a blockade. They'd find a way. I mean, we aren't joining the EU until things in Canada are sorted out first.

Lisa Gray94 said:Who exactly sold out America? I mean, seriously, do you actually have names or legally binding court rulings to back that up? No? Then why don't we just throw everyone else into this massive fire sale—the judges, the cops, the ambassadors, and all of us who sat there watching the whole thing go down while doing absolutely nothing.

How can you honestly think we didn't do anything?!! We gave people like that legitimacy through our own votes... the Republican Party, which built this entire system and ran it for 16 years, keeps getting elected legally and legitimately.

We, the people, chose this path—so I guess we deserve it.
For some folks, "America first" is all that matters. That’s the bottom line. The fact that we're staring down bankruptcy, or that 130 people lose their jobs every single day, doesn't seem to matter as long as we still "have America."

As long as the people obsessed with national pride don't die off—and until leaders emerge who care more about the *quality* of the country than just the mere fact that it exists—we're going to stay stuck in this mess we're in right now.

Look, Marshall was the president for everyone, including the people from Canada, so why aren't they filled with corrupt tycoons and cronies like the ones we blame on him?!!

The Republican Party has done way more damage to the US than Marshall, who died 30 years ago, ever did!

Of course, they'll try to protect their positions and keep everyone brainwashed by inventing some arch-enemy they need to "save" us from using those hyper-patriots... it's the classic move: one hand on your heart, the other deep in my pocket.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Honestly, this year you’re probably gonna realize this whole situation isn't about some global meltdown. It's just straight-up incompetence from the people running the show right now.

Even without any of the stuff you're bringing up, there would still be a blockade. They'd find a way. I mean, we aren't joining the EU until things in Canada are sorted out first.

I mean, I don't think any administration since the 90s is actually to blame for the fact that we aren't producing anything or exporting much—it's more like we just encourage imports and grow stuff nobody even wants. That's really the point I was trying to make before... I guess it's not really the state's job to micromanage and develop everything. Once the legislature sets the rules, it's all on the entrepreneurs, right? I mean, why else do you think the top 200 families basically run both American domestic and foreign policy? And then we just sit here and laugh whenever someone tries to call it out, instead of relying on those old-school relics from previous regimes to somehow "save" us.

briskbison55 said:I mean, you're still blaming the current administration for a global crisis, but okay, whatever. My point stays the same though—we've never actually had more opportunities than we do now, whether it's for jobs, education, traveling, or stuff like that.

It's just like how people said everything would grind to a halt if we didn't allow intervention during Desert Storm...

Exactly. Reagan wouldn't let anyone question the defense effort, but Clinton did. And, well, look—the gridlock happened. Have you actually finished reading up on how much of a mess Clinton's leadership was?

No, I'm blaming them for being totally unprepared and just ignoring the global crisis even when it was already hitting the US hard...

And who's to blame for that? Just remember those ten anti-recession measures that they failed to implement—not a single one went through. So there you have it...

True, back when the Financial Times was the main story, the European Union was nothing more than a pipe dream... let alone opening up negotiation chapters... pure science fiction...

I'm just mocking the logic where they constantly try to blackmail us using the Storm—and as for joining the European Union... it's hilarious where that logic was before the Declaration was signed... we weren't being blackmailed then by saying no signature means no EU, right?

And if anyone remembers, during the Financial Times era, the cooperation agreement with The Hague was signed and generals were actually being extradited... so much for the idea that the defense of the country was never called into question...

Austin Gonzalez13 said:How can you honestly think we didn't do anything?!! We gave people like that legitimacy through our own votes... the Republican Party, which built this entire system and ran it for 16 years, keeps getting elected legally and legitimately.

We, the people, chose this path—so I guess we deserve it.
For some folks, "America first" is all that matters. That’s the bottom line. The fact that we're staring down bankruptcy, or that 130 people lose their jobs every single day, doesn't seem to matter as long as we still "have America."

As long as the people obsessed with national pride don't die off—and until leaders emerge who care more about the *quality* of the country than just the mere fact that it exists—we're going to stay stuck in this mess we're in right now.

Look, Marshall was the president for everyone, including the people from Canada, so why aren't they filled with corrupt tycoons and cronies like the ones we blame on him?!!

The Republican Party has done way more damage to the US than Marshall, who died 30 years ago, ever did!

Of course, they'll try to protect their positions and keep everyone brainwashed by inventing some arch-enemy they need to "save" us from using those hyper-patriots... it's the classic move: one hand on your heart, the other deep in my pocket.

I cut out all the nonsense from the original post—just answer why the Democrats and the rest of the coalition didn't do a single thing to change the situation during their four-year term.

briskbison55 said:I mean, I don't think any administration since the 90s is actually to blame for the fact that we aren't producing anything or exporting much—it's more like we just encourage imports and grow stuff nobody even wants. That's really the point I was trying to make before... I guess it's not really the state's job to micromanage and develop everything. Once the legislature sets the rules, it's all on the entrepreneurs, right? I mean, why else do you think the top 200 families basically run both American domestic and foreign policy? And then we just sit here and laugh whenever someone tries to call it out, instead of relying on those old-school relics from previous regimes to somehow "save" us.

And who exactly is supposed to regulate the bureaucracy that stops investors from getting basic paperwork through without a headache?

Or is that also not the government's job?

Don't be ridiculous with those transparent excuses...

Just look at all the nonsense involving Elon Musk and the rest of them...

briskbison55 said:I mean, I don't think any administration since the 90s is actually to blame for the fact that we aren't producing anything or exporting much—it's more like we just encourage imports and grow stuff nobody even wants. That's really the point I was trying to make before... I guess it's not really the state's job to micromanage and develop everything. Once the legislature sets the rules, it's all on the entrepreneurs, right? I mean, why else do you think the top 200 families basically run both American domestic and foreign policy? And then we just sit here and laugh whenever someone tries to call it out, instead of relying on those old-school relics from previous regimes to somehow "save" us.

Exactly—it’s the fault of every single administration from the 90s up until today... though I'd say the ones right after the 90s bear the brunt of it, because that was when they built this whole system designed specifically to fuel imports... I mean, let's talk about exchange rates for a second, shall we?!

briskbison55 said:I cut out all the nonsense from the original post—just answer why the Democrats and the rest of the coalition didn't do a single thing to change the situation during their four-year term.

They actually did plenty, it’s just that you either can’t see it or you refuse to, mostly because you’re leaning too hard on slogans instead of actual facts.
We’ve seen a massive drop in liquidity issues, the budget burden and the deficit have been trimmed down, state bureaucracy has been cut back, and they really tried to stop those political leeches from draining the treasury... but then you had those radical agitators out protesting on the boardwalks—the same ones who now probably have to hide out on some yacht in the middle of the ocean just to avoid getting picked up by the authorities.

briskbison55 said:I cut out all the nonsense from the original post—just answer why the Democrats and the rest of the coalition didn't do a single thing to change the situation during their four-year term.

How did they not? It’s just that whenever they try to pass anything actually useful, people call it unpopular and—surprise, surprise—they lose the election.
I'm not even a member of the Democratic Party, just so we're clear, and yeah, they definitely made some pretty stupid moves back then. But man, what this current crowd is pulling... jeez.

Adam Collins4 said:No, I'm blaming them for being totally unprepared and just ignoring the global crisis even when it was already hitting the US hard...

And who's to blame for that? Just remember those ten anti-recession measures that they failed to implement—not a single one went through. So there you have it...

True, back when the Financial Times was the main story, the European Union was nothing more than a pipe dream... let alone opening up negotiation chapters... pure science fiction...

I'm just mocking the logic where they constantly try to blackmail us using the Storm—and as for joining the European Union... it's hilarious where that logic was before the Declaration was signed... we weren't being blackmailed then by saying no signature means no EU, right?

And if anyone remembers, during the Financial Times era, the cooperation agreement with The Hague was signed and generals were actually being extradited... so much for the idea that the defense of the country was never called into question...

Of course they are, but let's not go breaking any nationalist dogmas here.

Adam Collins4 said:No, I'm blaming them for being totally unprepared and just ignoring the global crisis even when it was already hitting the US hard...

And who's to blame for that? Just remember those ten anti-recession measures that they failed to implement—not a single one went through. So there you have it...

True, back when the Financial Times was the main story, the European Union was nothing more than a pipe dream... let alone opening up negotiation chapters... pure science fiction...

I'm just mocking the logic where they constantly try to blackmail us using the Storm—and as for joining the European Union... it's hilarious where that logic was before the Declaration was signed... we weren't being blackmailed then by saying no signature means no EU, right?

And if anyone remembers, during the Financial Times era, the cooperation agreement with The Hague was signed and generals were actually being extradited... so much for the idea that the defense of the country was never called into question...

Honestly, that’s just nonsense. I mean, in the UK, hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and entire companies went belly up, but here? We haven't seen anything on that scale at all. And now you're trying to sell me this political demagoguery. Look, as we discussed before regarding this topic, the experts don't agree with the silly points you're making. Even the major analysts aren't buying it. My god, who are you even listening to? :-)

Quincy:

That's true, back when the Financial Times was the main thing, the European Union was nothing more than a pipe dream... let alone opening up chapters... it was pure science fiction...

I guess if things had gone differently—like if certain leaders hadn't been sidelined by illness—we might have been in the European Union already. The neighbors wouldn't have said a word, and all those wet, delusional fantasies from random losers would have stayed just that: fantasies.

Quincy:

I'm just mocking the logic where they constantly try to blackmail us with stuff related to Desert Storm, yet when it comes to joining the European Union... it's almost funny where that logic was before the signing of the Declaration... back then, weren't we told there was no European Union without signing it?

Maybe the political party you worship so much can answer all of this once you guys finally stop being so blinded by red tape and emotion.

Quincy:

And if memory serves, during the Financial Times era, an agreement was signed with The Hague, and generals were being extradited... so much for the idea that the defense war wasn't being called into question...

Just ask the former President what he actually signed. Just that. Then maybe you can come back and laugh about it if you still find it funny.

briskbison55 said:I mean, I don't think any administration since the 90s is actually to blame for the fact that we aren't producing anything or exporting much—it's more like we just encourage imports and grow stuff nobody even wants. That's really the point I was trying to make before... I guess it's not really the state's job to micromanage and develop everything. Once the legislature sets the rules, it's all on the entrepreneurs, right? I mean, why else do you think the top 200 families basically run both American domestic and foreign policy? And then we just sit here and laugh whenever someone tries to call it out, instead of relying on those old-school relics from previous regimes to somehow "save" us.

Seems like you might be missing the bigger picture here.
If you're stuck working in an environment that's constantly draining you, how are you supposed to actually grow?
The government's gotta ensure a healthy foundation. I thought that was obvious.

And yeah, a country that doesn't export anything—let alone rely on exports—isn't going to get hit by a global recession quite as hard as you're trying to make it sound.
We kind of tripped ourselves up; we didn't even need a recession.

Austin Gonzalez13 said:They actually did plenty, it’s just that you either can’t see it or you refuse to, mostly because you’re leaning too hard on slogans instead of actual facts.
We’ve seen a massive drop in liquidity issues, the budget burden and the deficit have been trimmed down, state bureaucracy has been cut back, and they really tried to stop those political leeches from draining the treasury... but then you had those radical agitators out protesting on the boardwalks—the same ones who now probably have to hide out on some yacht in the middle of the ocean just to avoid getting picked up by the authorities.

haha, man, come on, get real. America hasn't seen this kind of debt levels until what the current administration has pulled off.

briskbison55 said:Honestly, that’s just nonsense. I mean, in the UK, hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and entire companies went belly up, but here? We haven't seen anything on that scale at all. And now you're trying to sell me this political demagoguery. Look, as we discussed before regarding this topic, the experts don't agree with the silly points you're making. Even the major analysts aren't buying it. My god, who are you even listening to? :-)

Quincy:

That's true, back when the Financial Times was the main thing, the European Union was nothing more than a pipe dream... let alone opening up chapters... it was pure science fiction...

I guess if things had gone differently—like if certain leaders hadn't been sidelined by illness—we might have been in the European Union already. The neighbors wouldn't have said a word, and all those wet, delusional fantasies from random losers would have stayed just that: fantasies.

Quincy:

I'm just mocking the logic where they constantly try to blackmail us with stuff related to Desert Storm, yet when it comes to joining the European Union... it's almost funny where that logic was before the signing of the Declaration... back then, weren't we told there was no European Union without signing it?

Maybe the political party you worship so much can answer all of this once you guys finally stop being so blinded by red tape and emotion.

Quincy:

And if memory serves, during the Financial Times era, an agreement was signed with The Hague, and generals were being extradited... so much for the idea that the defense war wasn't being called into question...

Just ask the former President what he actually signed. Just that. Then maybe you can come back and laugh about it if you still find it funny.

If he were actually alive today, he’d be sitting in a cell in The Hague. It’s common knowledge they were already putting an indictment together for him. ☕

briskbison55 said:haha, man, come on, get real. America hasn't seen this kind of debt levels until what the current administration has pulled off.

There it is again—that tired old cliché that just doesn't hold water. Foreign debt and national debt aren't even the same thing... honestly, maybe stick to topics you actually understand, because this clearly isn't your lane. External debt is driven by citizens (well, in our case), whereas the actual state debt is the responsibility of the President.

vegi
Look, don't get mad at me, but why am I even bothering to argue with you when you're just out here taking swings at the Republican Party? What's the point? It's like people didn't realize they were basically voting to keep the Democratic Party in power for all this time.
I mean, honestly, do you really think Timothy Geithner wasn't dirty? And then you've got Eric Adams, who was actually doing alright for a while until he started biting everyone's hand.

Karen Rodriguez3 said:How did they not? It’s just that whenever they try to pass anything actually useful, people call it unpopular and—surprise, surprise—they lose the election.
I'm not even a member of the Democratic Party, just so we're clear, and yeah, they definitely made some pretty stupid moves back then. But man, what this current crowd is pulling... jeez.

you know why that coalition lost the election? because their entire platform was basically just one highway project at a time, and that was right when they realized they'd spent more than half their term just bickering amongst themselves. Honestly, the Republican Party barely had to lift a finger to take over. Now they're complaining about calling the IMF, but even Račan called the IMF back in the day. They whine about highways while they were actually building much more expensive ones. And so on, and so forth... it's all just one big mess. Though, I guess nobody on their side got hit by it either because, like I said before, it's all the same old story—everyone is looking out for each other.

It's just a shame if some people actually fall for the spin about those "tough measures" being the reason they lost the election.

Lisa Gray94 said:vegi
Look, don't get mad at me, but why am I even bothering to argue with you when you're just out here taking swings at the Republican Party? What's the point? It's like people didn't realize they were basically voting to keep the Democratic Party in power for all this time.
I mean, honestly, do you really think Timothy Geithner wasn't dirty? And then you've got Eric Adams, who was actually doing alright for a while until he started biting everyone's hand.

I’m attacking whoever has been steering us down the wrong path 90% of the time... if it had been the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, or the Reform Party, I’d be coming for them too... but we all know who has been in charge for so long, and who is still pulling the strings today.

And of course, people didn't see the Coalition coming—the Republican Party won that election legitimately... so fine, let people live with their choices if that's what they want... every nation gets the government it deserves.
It seems we clearly deserve a Prime Minister who has to run for cover, and ministers who get exposed every single day for stealing everything they can get their hands on.

briskbison55 said:Honestly, that’s just nonsense. I mean, in the UK, hundreds of thousands of people lost their jobs and entire companies went belly up, but here? We haven't seen anything on that scale at all. And now you're trying to sell me this political demagoguery. Look, as we discussed before regarding this topic, the experts don't agree with the silly points you're making. Even the major analysts aren't buying it. My god, who are you even listening to? :-)

Quincy:

That's true, back when the Financial Times was the main thing, the European Union was nothing more than a pipe dream... let alone opening up chapters... it was pure science fiction...

I guess if things had gone differently—like if certain leaders hadn't been sidelined by illness—we might have been in the European Union already. The neighbors wouldn't have said a word, and all those wet, delusional fantasies from random losers would have stayed just that: fantasies.

Quincy:

I'm just mocking the logic where they constantly try to blackmail us with stuff related to Desert Storm, yet when it comes to joining the European Union... it's almost funny where that logic was before the signing of the Declaration... back then, weren't we told there was no European Union without signing it?

Maybe the political party you worship so much can answer all of this once you guys finally stop being so blinded by red tape and emotion.

Quincy:

And if memory serves, during the Financial Times era, an agreement was signed with The Hague, and generals were being extradited... so much for the idea that the defense war wasn't being called into question...

Just ask the former President what he actually signed. Just that. Then maybe you can come back and laugh about it if you still find it funny.

Oh, you're absolutely right, it's all just nonsense...

And the absolute peak of your argumentation is resorting to insults... kid, I don't kiss anyone's feet unless I actually believe the idiocy they're writing about...

And you—you can keep denying it all you want—but George W. Bush, along with his cronies, was out there rambling that there was no crisis coming... and claiming we had zero mechanisms to soften the blow...

I mean, seriously, it took us two whole years after the crash just to start trying to set up a fund to help those hit by the recession...

So, comparing us to the UK is just laughable... our economy operates differently, which means we should have prepared for the crash differently too...

And that guy you mentioned—the one who actually warned everyone about the impending crisis—was branded an incompetent by George W. Bush and his circle. Again, just a stellar indicator of how prepared we were for the meltdown...

Deny it as much as you like... the cooperation agreements were signed back in the '90s, and even then, generals were being handed over... basically, the smear campaign against the defense effort started just before that.

Let me ask you something... suppose Desert Storm wasn't put on trial, and only certain specific officers were convicted—would that, in your eyes, somehow disprove the idea that the entire operation was a legitimate defensive war?